PDA

View Full Version : nadal on clay = most dominant tennis ever?


raiden031
04-18-2009, 07:53 AM
Does any player's dominance in history either short or long term compare to nadal's dominance on clay the past couple years? I'm trying to emphasize acute dominance such as his level of game above everyone else, not his longevity of dominance.

Some other comparisons are:

Sampras on grass
Federer on grass
Federer's 4 years at #1
Laver's calendar slams

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 08:25 AM
Borg on red clay surfaces from 1977 to 1980. I've excluded green clay results and exhibitions, as I don't have the complete ones, but those are good too.

The combined record is 88-2. Including 1981, it's 105-3.

1977

Nice, France
R32 Hrebec, Jiri (CZE) N/A 6-2 7-5
R16 Dominguez, Patrice (FRA) N/A 6-2 6-1
Q Prajoux, Belus (CHI) N/A 6-4 6-2
S Pecci Sr., Victor (PAR) N/A 6-3 6-3
W Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) N/A 6-4 1-6 6-2 6-0

Monte Carlo, Monaco
R32 Schaller, Gilbert (AUT) 64 6-3 6-3
R16 Amritraj, Vijay (IND) N/A 6-2 6-2
Q Dibbs, Eddie (USA) N/A 6-4 6-2
S Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) N/A 6-2 6-3
W Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) N/A 6-3 7-5 6-0

Madrid, Spain
R64 Norback, Jan (SWE) N/A 6-0 6-1
R32 Prajoux, Belus (CHI) N/A 3-6 6-0 6-1
R16 Andersson, Birger (SWE) N/A 6-4 6-3
Q Higueras, Jose (ESP) N/A 6-2 6-2
S Dibbs, Eddie (USA) N/A 6-2 6-3 6-3
W Fillol Sr., Jaime (CHI) N/A 6-3 6-0 6-7 7-6

Barcelona, Spain
R64 Ruiz, Rafael (ESP) N/A 6-0 6-0
R32 Moreno, Jose (ESP) N/A 6-3 4-6 6-4
R16 Pecci Sr., Victor (PAR) N/A 6-2 6-3
Q Higueras, Jose (ESP) N/A 6-0 6-1
S Dibbs, Eddie (USA) N/A 6-0 6-0 6-4
W Orantes, Manuel (ESP) N/A 6-2 7-5 6-2

1978:

Rome, Italy
R64 Ycaza, Ricardo (ECU) N/A 4-6 6-0 6-2
R32 Deblicker, Eric (FRA) N/A 5-7 6-2 6-0
R16 Tanner, Roscoe (USA) N/A 6-2 6-4
Q Solomon, Harold (USA) N/A 6-2 6-1
S Dibbs, Eddie (USA) N/A 6-4 6-3 6-0
W Panatta, Adriano (ITA) N/A 1-6 6-3 6-1 4-6 6-3

Roland Garros, France
R128 Deblicker, Eric (FRA) N/A 6-1 6-1 6-1
R64 ***el, Rick (USA) N/A 6-0 6-1 6-0
R32 Bertolucci, Paolo (ITA) N/A 6-0 6-2 6-2
R16 Tanner, Roscoe (USA) N/A 6-2 6-4 7-6
Q Ramirez, Raul (MEX) N/A 6-3 6-3 6-0
S Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) N/A 6-0 6-1 6-0
W Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) N/A 6-1 6-1 6-3

Davis Cup, Bastad, Sweden
R Orantes, Manuel (ESP) 6-2 5-7 6-3 6-3
R Higueras, Jose (ESP) 6-1 6-4 6-2

Bastad, Sweden
R32 Giammalva, Tony (USA) N/A 6-1 6-0
R16 Carmichael, Bob (AUS) N/A 6-0 6-0
Q Lewis, Chris (NZL) N/A 7-6 6-3
S Munoz, Antonio (ESP) N/A 6-4 6-1
W Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) N/A 6-1 6-2

1979

Monte Carlo, Monaco
R32 Bertolucci, Paolo (ITA) N/A 6-0 6-1
R16 Higueras, Jose (ESP) N/A 6-4 6-4
Q Clerc, Jose-Luis (ARG) N/A 4-6 6-2 6-1
S Pecci Sr., Victor (PAR) N/A 6-4 6-1
W Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) N/A 6-2 6-1 6-3

Hamburg, Germany
R64 Cox, Mark (GBR) N/A 6-1 6-1
R32 Ocleppo, Gianni (ITA) N/A 6-3 7-5
R16 Teltscher, Eliot (USA) N/A 4-1 RET

Roland Garros, France
R128 Smid, Tomas (CZE) N/A 6-1 5-7 6-4 6-4
R64 Gullikson, Tom (USA) N/A 6-3 7-6 5-7 6-4
R32 Moore, Raymond (RSA) N/A 6-3 6-1 6-0
R16 Moretton, Gilles (FRA) N/A 7-5 6-4 6-2
Q Gildemeister, Hans (CHI) N/A 6-4 6-1 7-5
S Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) N/A 6-2 6-1 6-0
W Pecci Sr., Victor (PAR) N/A 6-3 6-1 6-7 6-4

Davis Cup, Bucharest, Romania
R Haradau, Dimitru (ROM) 6-3 6-0 6-1
R Nastase, Ilie (ROM) 6-3 6-0 6-0

Bastad, Sweden
R32 Freyss, Christophe (FRA) N/A 6-4 6-0
R16 Zugarelli, Antonio (ITA) N/A 6-0 6-1
Q Martin, Billy (USA) N/A 6-0 6-3
S Johansson, Kjell (SWE) N/A 6-3 6-0
W Taroczy, Balazs (HUN) N/A 6-1 7-5

Davis Cup, Prague, Czechoslovakia
R Lendl, Ivan (CZE) 6-4 7-5 6-2

Palermo, Italy
R32 Munoz, Antonio (ESP) N/A 6-4 6-0
R16 Gimenez, Angel (ESP) N/A 6-0 4-6 6-1
Q Hjertquist, Per (SWE) N/A 6-2 6-4
S Mottram, Buster C. (GBR) N/A W/O
W Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) N/A 6-4 6-0 6-4

1980

Nice, France
R32 Haillet, Jean-Louis (FRA) N/A 6-0 6-1
R16 Franulovic, Zeljko (CRO) N/A 6-2 6-2
Q McNamara, Peter (AUS) N/A 6-2 6-1
S Luna, Fernando (ESP) N/A 7-5 6-1
W Orantes, Manuel (ESP) N/A 6-2 6-0 6-1

Monte Carlo, Monaco
R32 McNamara, Peter (AUS) N/A 6-2 6-2
R16 Lendl, Ivan (USA) N/A 6-2 6-2
Q Clerc, Jose-Luis (ARG) N/A 7-5 6-3
S Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) N/A 6-0 6-2
W Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) N/A 6-1 6-0 6-2

Nations Cup, Germany
RR Alexander, John (AUS) N/A 7-6 6-2
RR Higueras, Jose (ESP) N/A 6-1 6-2
RR Mayer, Gene (USA) N/A 6-3 7-5
S Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) N/A 3-6 6-1 1-6

Roland Garros, France
R128 Fillol, Alvaro (CHI) N/A 6-3 6-1 6-4
R64 Gomez, Andres (ECU) N/A 6-2 6-2 6-1
R32 Portes, Pascal (FRA) N/A 6-3 6-0 6-1
R16 Taroczy, Balazs (HUN) N/A 6-2 6-2 6-0
Q Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) N/A 6-0 6-3 6-3
S Solomon, Harold (USA) N/A 6-2 6-2 6-0
W Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) N/A 6-4 6-1 6-2

deltox
04-18-2009, 08:31 AM
Borg on red clay surfaces from 1977 to 1980. I've excluded green clay results and exhibitions, as I don't have the complete ones, but those are good too.

The combined record is 88-2. Including 1981, it's 105-3.



thats a 98% or 97% win percentage on red clay for Borg.

unless im missing a tourney nadal is a combined 100 - 6

which is a 94% win percentage

nadal has 4 RG slams

borg has 6

i think its a TAD premature to call nadal the best clay courter ever, although he may very well be by the time his career is over.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 08:34 AM
I've added up the other clay court results I have for Borg for 1977-1980, including green clay and red clay exhibition and I got 21-2. The losses are the US Open 4th round on green, when Borg was injured (Dick Stockton), and the final of the Buenos Aires exhibition on red clay to Connors, shortly after the 1978 US Open.

Otherwise I included the four Pepsi Grand slams, the 1977 Hilton Head event, and some exos like Marbella and Cairo. I also have some results for which the surface isn't indicated, which may or may not be clay. I wouldn't take these results as seriously - they're impressive, but green and red clay aren't exactly alike.

I think most would agree that Borg's peak on clay was 1977-80, or 1977-81.

raiden031
04-18-2009, 08:40 AM
Due to my age, i didn't witness borg's playing days, but would you say he is more dominant than nadal or just comparable to him?

deltox
04-18-2009, 08:48 AM
Due to my age, i didn't witness borg's playing days, but would you say he is more dominant than nadal or just comparable to him?

its debatable no doubt, but iby stats he still has better numbers. Nadal should could and probably will beat them by the end.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 08:54 AM
Due to my age, i didn't witness borg's playing days, but would you say he is more dominant than nadal or just comparable to him?

Both are very dominant, in the sense that there's a feeling that no one can beat them on the surface unless they're hurt or seriously beat up.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 09:03 AM
Nope. Pete got 7 wimbys in 8 years. Nadal needs to a win a few more French Opens. I dont care much for the smaller tournaments. Domination at the slams on 1 surface is all that matters. IF Nadal falls short of 7 RG's than he is not the most dominant ever

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 09:13 AM
Nope. Pete got 7 wimbys in 8 years. Nadal needs to a win a few more French Opens. I dont care much for the smaller tournaments. Domination at the slams on 1 surface is all that matters. IF Nadal falls short of 7 RG's than he is not the most dominant ever

That's not how I define dominance. Dominance is shellacking the opposition; not consistently being just good enough to win from year to year.

Dominance is being head-and-shoulders above. Being so good that others don't even give themselves a chance.

Pete is probably the most accomplished grass courter in the open era. But was he as dominant on his surface as Nadal is on clay? I don't think so.

380pistol
04-18-2009, 09:55 AM
Nope. Pete got 7 wimbys in 8 years. Nadal needs to a win a few more French Opens. I dont care much for the smaller tournaments. Domination at the slams on 1 surface is all that matters. IF Nadal falls short of 7 RG's than he is not the most dominant ever

That's not how I define dominance. Dominance is shellacking the opposition; not consistently being just good enough to win from year to year.

Dominance is being head-and-shoulders above. Being so good that others don't even give themselves a chance.

Pete is probably the most accomplished grass courter in the open era. But was he as dominant on his surface as Nadal is on clay? I don't think so.

I actually agree. But... Borg is closer or ahead of Nadal on clay, than anyone is to Sapras on grass in the open era.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 09:58 AM
I actually agree. But... Borg is closer or ahead of Nadal on clay, than anyone is to Sapras on grass in the open era.

I don't know. It doesn't help that there's only one important event on grass now and ever since the Australian went to hardcourts. So it's quite hard to analyze.

raiden031
04-18-2009, 10:04 AM
Nope. Pete got 7 wimbys in 8 years. Nadal needs to a win a few more French Opens. I dont care much for the smaller tournaments. Domination at the slams on 1 surface is all that matters. IF Nadal falls short of 7 RG's than he is not the most dominant ever

I'm trying to avoid the longevity argument. I'm talking about peak performance only during their dominant days.

What was the more likely occurrence...Pete winning Wimbledon at his best or Nadal winning the French at his best? Obviously history shows that both occurred a lot but which was more of a sure thing?

And with Borg's stats, he clearly was a dominant figure on clay, but I still don't know who is rivals were and whether anyone came close to challenging him. With Nadal he owns his biggest rival on clay (Federer) easily. Who was Borg's biggest threat on clay and how did he fare?

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 10:40 AM
I'm trying to avoid the longevity argument. I'm talking about peak performance only during their dominant days.

What was the more likely occurrence...Pete winning Wimbledon at his best or Nadal winning the French at his best? Obviously history shows that both occurred a lot but which was more of a sure thing?

And with Borg's stats, he clearly was a dominant figure on clay, but I still don't know who is rivals were and whether anyone came close to challenging him. With Nadal he owns his biggest rival on clay (Federer) easily. Who was Borg's biggest threat on clay and how did he fare?

Well Vilas IMO was much more formidable opponent on clay than Fed ever was. Fed is the 2nd best player on clay in this era? Now Im not denying Fed is a pretty solid clay courter, but are we going to take competition into account as well? Fed in the grand scheme of things doesnt make even the top 10 best clay courters ever. There are handful of player much better on clay than Roger ever was. The clay court field hasnt been exactly the strongest competition, depth wise since the 90s.


If you make a list of the best clay court players ever. I dont think Fed will be up there very high. Top 20 for sure. Not top 10. And Fed has been Nadal's only major opponent this far really

Cesc Fabregas
04-18-2009, 10:45 AM
Well Vilas IMO was much more formidable opponent on clay than Fed ever was. Fed is the 2nd best player on clay in this era? Now Im not denying Fed is a pretty solid clay courter, but are we going to take competition into account as well? Fed in the grand scheme of things doesnt make even the top 10 best clay courters ever. There are handful of player much better on clay than Roger ever was. The clay court field hasnt been exactly the strongest competition, depth wise since the 90s.

Vilas wasn't exactly tough competition for Borg, Borg wiped the floor with him when they meet on clay.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 10:48 AM
Vilas wasn't exactly tough competition for Borg, Borg wiped the floor with him when they meet on clay.

But Vilas will still be highly regarded ahead of Fed on clay.

NandoMania
04-18-2009, 10:57 AM
thats a 98% or 97% win percentage on red clay for Borg.

unless im missing a tourney nadal is a combined 100 - 6

which is a 94% win percentage

nadal has 4 RG slams

borg has 6

i think its a TAD premature to call nadal the best clay courter ever, although he may very well be by the time his career is over.

The validity of the point ALL depends on the math, so are those numbers verified?

Another important number: Borg's age when he won the 6th RG. Anybody?

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 11:00 AM
The "most dominant" is just based on pure statistics and nothing else. Numbers arent the be all, end all to everything. It goes much deeper than that. Everyone should know that. Nadal has had the luxury of playing a pretty sub-par average clay field. The clay field hasnt been solid since the 90s

deltox
04-18-2009, 11:03 AM
The validity of the point ALL depends on the math, so are those numbers verified?

Another important number: Borg's age when he won the 6th RG. Anybody?

pulled straight off the atp website

borg won his titles between ages 18-25 where he went 6 out of 7 RG

deltox
04-18-2009, 11:03 AM
The validity of the point ALL depends on the math, so are those numbers verified?

Another important number: Borg's age when he won the 6th RG. Anybody?

age is irrelevant, some players peak alot earlier than others. its about time frame more than age at the time

so he went 6 out of 7 in 7 years,, nadal is 4 out of 4 in 4 years. so in 3 years we can see how he fairs for the record.

nadal needs to sweep the clay court season this year and next to get the same percentages as borg.

thats all the relevant info i can find unless you ask more questions.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 11:10 AM
And with Borg's stats, he clearly was a dominant figure on clay, but I still don't know who is rivals were and whether anyone came close to challenging him. With Nadal he owns his biggest rival on clay (Federer) easily. Who was Borg's biggest threat on clay and how did he fare?

Guillermo Vilas is of course the man who held the longest clay court wiinning streak before Nadal broke it. But Borg owned him and it wasn't terribly close.

He was definitely the second best clay court player after Borg in those years.

Borg's toughest clay court opponent was probably Adriano Panatta - the 1976 champ.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 11:11 AM
age is irrelevant, some players peak alot earlier than others. its about time frame more than age at the time

so he went 6 out of 7 in 7 years,, nadal is 4 out of 4 in 4 years. so in 3 years we can see how he fairs for the record.

nadal needs to sweep the clay court season this year and next to get the same percentages as borg.

thats all the relevant info i can find unless you ask more questions.

Borg won 6 of 7 in eight years, due to skipping the 1977 RG event (WTT).

edberg505
04-18-2009, 11:19 AM
The "most dominant" is just based on pure statistics and nothing else. Numbers arent the be all, end all to everything. It goes much deeper than that. Everyone should know that. Nadal has had the luxury of playing a pretty sub-par average clay field. The clay field hasnt been solid since the 90s

Damn, Nadal for winning on clay all the time. Now Nadal needs to lose to Djokovic, Murray, and Federer a few times then we can say the clay field is strong. LOL, this is too funny. So according to you the claycourt field went out in the 90's and will never be that strong ever again. Of course that is until Nadal retires or starts losing.

Benhur
04-18-2009, 11:20 AM
thats a 98% or 97% win percentage on red clay for Borg.

unless im missing a tourney nadal is a combined 100 - 6

which is a 94% win percentage


At the end of last yearís RG, Nadal was 115-2 on clay since his loss to Andreev in Valencia in early April 2005.

Since then, he played and won 4 DC matches on clay, and 4 more this week at Monte Carlo.

So, in the four-year span since that time until today, Nadal is 123-2 on clay. Thatís a 98.40% winning percentage.

Borgís 88-2 during the four-year span mentioned (1977-1980) is 97.77%

In terms of overall accomplishments on clay, Borg's 6 RG have their own weight and are better than 4, no question.

In terms of sheer domination, Nadal is slightly ahead if you go only by numbers, and even more clearly ahead if you also consider the quality of the tournaments won outside RG during the same span.


If you include 1981 (105-3) it is 97.22

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 11:21 AM
Damn, Nadal for winning on clay all the time. Now Nadal needs to lose to Djokovic, Murray, and Federer a few times then we can say the clay field is strong. LOL, this is too funny. So according to you the claycourt field went out in the 90's and will never be that strong ever again. Of course that is until Nadal retires or starts losing.

Not saying it wont be as strong again. But you are kidding youself if you think the clay field is as strong today and has been for the last 4-5 years as it was in the 70s 80s and 90s

edberg505
04-18-2009, 11:22 AM
Not saying it wont be as strong again. But you are kidding youself if you think the clay field is as strong today and has been for the last 4-5 years as it was in the 70s 80s and 90s

If say, Courier was winning everything in sight on clay and no one could beat him either you'd be saying how weak the field was during that time. Obviously you only see one side of the argument.

Leonidas
04-18-2009, 11:32 AM
Agreed. You have to look at the wuality of tennis, nothing else. If Nadal and federer werenīt around, people such as Gaudio, nalbandian, Puerta, Almagro and ferrer could have some clay masters events or even french open titles. the fact is: Djoker, Federer and specially Nadal are more complete than sheer clay courters. They can play awsome tennis from every part of the court, they can defend, the can hit hard and they are mentally ahead of the rest. Do you understand now that the clay field is not weaker than before? In fact, nadal, Fed or Djoker would beat Bruguera, fafelnikov, courier.... on clay. Period

35ft6
04-18-2009, 11:47 AM
i think its a TAD premature to call nadal the best clay courter everI don't. He's the best I've ever seen. Ferocious.

Video of Lendl and Borg at French Open (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o).

35ft6
04-18-2009, 11:49 AM
Not saying it wont be as strong again. But you are kidding youself if you think the clay field is as strong today and has been for the last 4-5 years as it was in the 70s 80s and 90sWay stronger than 70's and 80's, stronger than 90's by less, but still stronger. Lets put it this way, there will never be another French Open finalist with a continental forehand (Edberg and Mac). Guys are fitter, faster, and hit harder today.

Benhur
04-18-2009, 11:49 AM
At the end of last yearís RG, Nadal was 115-2 on clay since his loss to Andreev in Valencia in early April 2005.

Since then, he played and won 4 DC matches on clay, and 4 more this week at Monte Carlo.

So, in the four-year span since that time until today, Nadal is 123-2 on clay. Thatís a 98.40% winning percentage.

Borgís 88-2 during the four-year span mentioned (1977-1980) is 97.77%

In terms of overall accomplishments on clay, Borg's 6 RG have their own weight and are better than 4, no question.

In terms of sheer domination, Nadal is slightly ahead if you go only by numbers, and even more clearly ahead if you also consider the quality of the tournaments won outside RG during the same span.


One more comment I forgot to make.
Once you have a loss, you can never reach 100%, no matter how many matches you win. The percentage growth is logarithmic with relation to the matches won, and every match won alters the percentage less and less. This means that as the number of matches grows, each fraction of a percentage becomes increasingly more significant as it approaches, but never reaches, 100%.

Clearly, 123-2 is *much* better than 88-2, because it involves 35 more matches won with the same number of matches loss. Thatís about 40% more matches won! (and if this weren't enough, the quality of the tournaments is clearly better also). Yet the percentage difference seems very close. But of course! Even if Nadal was 600-2, or 4,000-2, he would still be within 99%. But only a lunatic would say that 600-2 is ďvery closeĒ to 88-2 just because it's barely 2 percentage points apart. The reductio ad absurdum of this kind of reliance on percentage would be a player with, say, a 3-0 record on clay over four years (maybe there are some). His winning percentage would be 100% - i.e. unsurpassable, and "better" than both Borg's and Nadal's.

Dilettante
04-18-2009, 12:01 PM
I don't. He's the best I've ever seen. Ferocious.

Video of Lendl and Borg at French Open (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o).

Tennis has changed so much. For the best, IMO.

EtePras
04-18-2009, 12:11 PM
I don't. He's the best I've ever seen. Ferocious.

Video of Lendl and Borg at French Open (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o).

ROFL

The level of tennis is so much higher today, it's ridiculous. Roddick would annihilate these guys even on that surface. This is like saying the 300 Spartans would beat the US army today just because the kill-death ratio was so much better.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 12:12 PM
In terms of sheer domination, Nadal is slightly ahead if you go only by numbers, and even more clearly ahead if you also consider the quality of the tournaments won outside RG during the same span.

If you ignore his early 2005 losses, yes. That's pretty arbitrary though.

Benhur
04-18-2009, 12:20 PM
I don't. He's the best I've ever seen. Ferocious.

Video of Lendl and Borg at French Open (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o).

Yes, it looks almost as if they are warming up. But in all fairness it should be said that both of them could hit a lot harder than that if they chose to, especially Lendl. They are just playing in a particularly exaggerated safety mode, where the *only* goal is to keep the ball in play and just wait for the other guy to make a mistake. Horrible strategy against someone like Borg. No wonder Lendl lost that one. Imagine Murray playing himself (I mean the version of Murray that played against Davydenko yesterday). It would look similar. But that does not mean he cannot play differently, as he showed today in the second set against Nadal.

But in general, yes, they do hit harder today than back then.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 12:22 PM
Clearly, 123-2 is *much* better than 88-2, because it involves 35 more matches won with the same number of matches loss. That’s about 40% more matches won!

This is just nitpicky. 123-2 is not objectively better than 88-2. This is nothing but unnecessary semantics. If one really probes into the reality of the numbers then one will see that the losses can be judged differently.

For example, does a loss by Borg when up 4-1 in Hamburg and then retiring due to injury really the same as a loss by Nadal at Rome where he was just soundly beaten?

(and if this weren't enough, the quality of the tournaments is clearly better also). Yet the percentage difference seems very close. But of course! Even if Nadal was 600-2, or 4,000-2, he would still be within 99%. But only a lunatic would say that 600-2 is “very close” to 88-2 just because it's barely 2 percentage points apart. The reductio ad absurdum of this kind of reliance on percentage would be a player with, say, a 3-0 record on clay over four years (maybe there are some). His winning percentage would be 100% - i.e. unsurpassable, and "better" than both Borg's and Nadal's.

If Nadal does get to 600-2, then you'll have a point. However if Nadal loses tomorrow or next week, which he very well might does that then mean that his record isn't "much better" anymore? This is nitpicking to the max, IMO.

A hypothetical record 100-2 isn't objectively more dominant than a hypothetical record of 80-2. They're both dominant.

Now let's say that these aforementioned records account for 4-year spreads, but if extended to five-year spreads, they wind up 120-4 and 100-3, respectively. Is the latter now much better than the former?

Frankly, I don't think so. All that the numbers say is that both players dominated. Claiming objective knowledge due to such minor differences is kind of petty.

deltox
04-18-2009, 12:30 PM
I don't. He's the best I've ever seen. Ferocious.

Video of Lendl and Borg at French Open (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o).

since you wanna use old clips with crap racquets and terribad strings and such then lets hand rafa and todays field wooden sticks and see how he stacks up. or better yet invent a time machine and give lendel and borg some Babolats. hell even conners would be NASTY with todays hard hitting technology. Talk about hitting flat and hard, conners is the man to show that off.

you cannot compare how one played 20 years ago to how one played today


ridiculous

deltox
04-18-2009, 12:32 PM
At the end of last yearís RG, Nadal was 115-2 on clay since his loss to Andreev in Valencia in early April 2005.

Since then, he played and won 4 DC matches on clay, and 4 more this week at Monte Carlo.

So, in the four-year span since that time until today, Nadal is 123-2 on clay. Thatís a 98.40% winning percentage.

Borgís 88-2 during the four-year span mentioned (1977-1980) is 97.77%

In terms of overall accomplishments on clay, Borg's 6 RG have their own weight and are better than 4, no question.

In terms of sheer domination, Nadal is slightly ahead if you go only by numbers, and even more clearly ahead if you also consider the quality of the tournaments won outside RG during the same span.


If you include 1981 (105-3) it is 97.22

you selectively cut off the time frame your quoting.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 12:34 PM
Yes, it looks almost as if they are warming up. But in all fairness it should be said that both of them could hit a lot harder than that if they chose to, especially Lendl. They are just playing in a particularly exaggerated safety mode, where the *only* goal is to keep the ball in play and just wait for the other guy to make a mistake. Horrible strategy against someone like Borg. No wonder Lendl lost that one. Imagine Murray playing himself (I mean the version of Murray that played against Davydenko yesterday). It would look similar. But that does not mean he cannot play differently, as he showed today in the second set against Nadal.

But in general, yes, they do hit harder today than back then.

Context is important. One smartass shows up in a thread, brings out a youtube clip and smarmily declares that something is white, while something else is black. This is tired.

No mention of the differences in surface, technology and other era-specifics.

There are also match specifics. This clip is of the fifth set, where Lendl is extremely tired and moving terribly. Borg is staying back and grinding him to death. That's they played it on clay in this years. You couldn't hit many clean winners - not on that surface and not with that technology.

Do we see many 100-point rallies today on red clay? No, guys hit winners from way back. Is it because they're better? Nah - look at their racquets and strings and compare them to what Borg was playing with.

35ft6 is posting poison and I say this, perfectly aware on his position from years past. He isn't interested in nuance and context - he simply dismisses something without even slightest curiosity in the way things really work.

It's a kind of hubris, egoism that I cannot stand. Just the mere suggestion that today professionals know how to play tennis, but just 30 years ago they had no clue.

The amusing thing in all of this is that these judgements are all based on simple cognitive constructs that react to velocity and sometimes sound effects. Show someone that clip and then another one, such as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY and people start thinking.

All the while the aforementioned smartass completely ignores the most important context - that of the thread. The topic of dominance is dismissed and ignored in favour of a simplistic thread on how pros of the past weren't as good and therefore it doesn't matter. Yeah, ok. Whatever.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 12:36 PM
you selectively cut off the time frame your quoting.

You put it more efficiently than I did.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 12:37 PM
Way stronger than 70's and 80's, stronger than 90's by less, but still stronger. Lets put it this way, there will never be another French Open finalist with a continental forehand (Edberg and Mac). Guys are fitter, faster, and hit harder today.

Tarzan hit harder!

Tarzan smash!

Tarzan better!

/ your logic.

deltox
04-18-2009, 12:51 PM
Borg won 6 of 7 in eight years, due to skipping the 1977 RG event (WTT).

sorry wasnt paying attention to years when writing it all down off the atp site

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 01:05 PM
I think it's mostly a matter of velocity when it comes to that RG clip. Take the really slow red clay of the 1970s and compare it with the faster green clay and the effect is very different. For comparison:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMfBpkUJeKE&feature=related

vs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGvgXpuSKaE&feature=related

In both cases, the racquets are ancient. Lendl started using much larger frames in 1980, which benefitted his power game. The switch the graphite manifested mostly in 82-83 and the entire tennis world began to adjust. A lot of cosmetic, commercial factors - players, in turn, adjust.

The biggest change was string technology though - by the early 90s you already have the kind of tennis that we're used to seeing now. Almost.

So, I think it comes down mostly to two things about those red clay clips: a) lack of velocity, which really isn't representative of all surfaces - YT, for example, has very few highlights of indoor tennis (one of the few they have is that Connors-Laver Las Vegas clip, which has lightning-quick rallies); and b) safety; guys not taking the ball as early or going for for the lines as much as they do today. Again, mostly the result of what the technology affords.

Here's Connors-Laver on faster hard surface: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM

Benhur
04-18-2009, 01:19 PM
If you ignore his early 2005 losses, yes. That's pretty arbitrary though.

No. Not more arbitrary than any other 4 year period. We are comparing 4 year periods. We are in mid April 2009.
But even if you were to include all of 2005, the record to date for Nadal would be 139-4, which is 97.20% to Borg's 97.22 if you include 1981 or to Borgís 97.77 if you exclude it.

But keep in mind my comments on the previous post. 139 matches won in 4.25 years is still more impressive than 88 in 4 years, or 105 in 5 years, for an equal or very similar percentage. And 123-2 in 4 years is clearly better and has a better percentage than 88-2 in 4 years. And donít lose sight of all those Monte Carlos, and Barcelonas, and Romes, and Hamburger tournaments whence most of the wins were manufactured aside from RG.

But I repeat. This does in no way detract from he fact that Borgís overall accomplishments on clay are still better. The thread is about domination, though.
In terms of domination over a 4 year period, the numbers seem to show Nadal ahead.

(Similar case between Sampras and Federer in terms of overall accomplishment vs domination, except that in this case Federer's domination while at the top was much, much better than Sampras, whereas Nadalís over Borgís on clay is better but by a considerably narrower margin.

JoshDragon
04-18-2009, 01:19 PM
The "most dominant" is just based on pure statistics and nothing else. Numbers arent the be all, end all to everything. It goes much deeper than that. Everyone should know that. Nadal has had the luxury of playing a pretty sub-par average clay field. The clay field hasnt been solid since the 90s

The 90s??...hmmm...wait...wasn't that during the days of Andre, who couldn't slide on clay, Moya, the one slam wonder, and Sampras the fluke 96 semi-finalist?

Oh I should also include Medvev, he was a clay court monster at some of the masters series but he only managed to make one RG final in his whole career.

Benhur
04-18-2009, 01:36 PM
This is just nitpicky. 123-2 is not objectively better than 88-2. This is nothing but unnecessary semantics. If one really probes into the reality of the numbers then one will see that the losses can be judged differently.


What do you mean unnecessary semantics? The semantics of obfuscation are entirely in your court, and they are indeed unnecessary.

123-2 IS objectively a lot better than 88-2 over the same period of time. Just ask around.

It is better in terms of percentage, and much better in terms of accomplishment, unless you miraculously believe that 35 wins beyond 88 (that's 40% more wins, with the same number of losses), is a meaningless detail. It isn't, and you should get used to it. For the exact same reason that 200-2 would be clearly better than 123-2. And for the same reason that 88-2 would be clearly better than, say, 68-2.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 01:44 PM
No. Not more arbitrary than any other 4 year period. We are comparing 4 year periods.

The OP was talking about two years. I brought up four years simply to give a more complete picture. I also provided a record accounting for five years.

But keep in mind my comments on the previous post. 139 matches won in 4.25 years is still more impressive than 88 in 4 years, or 105 in 5 years, for an equal or very similar percentage. And 123-2 in 4 years is clearly better and has a better percentage than 88-2 in 4 years. And donít lose sight of all those Monte Carlos, and Barcelonas, and Romes, and Hamburger tournaments whence most of the wins were manufactured aside from RG.

You're right, if only Borg was playing in more Hamburger tournaments. What would have been. Playing in more events overall over four years does not mean more dominant.

But I repeat. This does in no way detract from he fact that Borgís overall accomplishments on clay are still better. The thread is about domination, though.
In terms of domination over a 4 year period, the numbers seem to show Nadal ahead.

Not really. The results for 2005-2008 those of 1977-1980 are neck-in-neck. The whole April-to-April thing is just a convenient excemption made by you.

(Similar case between Sampras and Federer in terms of overall accomplishment vs domination, except that in this case Federer's domination while at the top was much, much better than Sampras, whereas Nadalís over Borgís on clay is better but by a considerably narrower margin.

Um, therefore it's not similar at all.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 01:47 PM
What do you mean unnecessary semantics? The semantics of obfuscation are entirely in your court, and they are indeed unnecessary.

I made no ambiguous statements of value. I presented partial records Borg simply for overview. At no time did I say that one was more dominant than the other.

123-2 IS objectively a lot better than 88-2 over the same period of time. Just ask around.

You twist the dates to fit your argument. And, sorry to disappoint, but only by truly *******ed logic is 123-2 a lot better than 88-2.

It is better in terms of percentage, and much better in terms of accomplishment, unless you miraculously believe that 35 wins beyond 88 (that's 40% more wins, with the same number of losses), is a meaningless detail. It isn't, and you should get used to it. For the exact same reason that 200-2 would be clearly better than 123-2. And for the same reason that 88-2 would be clearly better than, say, 68-2.

This is pretty crafty, to say the least. At least you buy your own ********.

tennis-hero
04-18-2009, 02:58 PM
Muster 95-96 record 115-5

in the 1990s when "clay tennis had more then 2 good players" :roll:

therefore peak muster could beat borg and Nadal

Benhur
04-18-2009, 03:13 PM
[QUOTE=CyBorg;3332615] The OP was talking about two years. I brought up four years simply to give a more complete picture. I also provided a record accounting for five years.

Two years? Okay, take two years. Go from MC 2005 to MC 2007. Or from Rome 2005 to Rome 2007. Don't tell me that's not two years. And don't tell me that YOU get to choose the two year boundary dates, but I don't. Such freshness will not be tolerated.

In that two-year period, the winning percentage is 100% and therefore cannot get any better. I can guarantee you that even if Borg has any 2-year period with 100% wins on clay (I don't know if he does, you can investigate) Nadal played more matches in that two year period than in any Borg 2-year period, which means that the record is better.

You prefer four years? I've already told you what has happened over the last four years. Don't tell me again that your the 4-year boundaries you set have the blessing of the Pope, but mine don't. Four years is 48 months.

You're right, if only Borg was playing in more Hamburger tournaments. What would have been. Playing in more events overall over four years does not mean more dominant.

It certainly does, if the winning percentage is similar or superior. Duh. And even if it isn't. Otherwise a player playing 7 matches in 4 years and winning them all would have a better record than Borg or Nadal.

Not really. The results for 2005-2008 those of 1977-1980 are neck-in-neck. The whole April-to-April thing is just a convenient excemption made by you.

It's not an exemption. It's exactly four years and therefore complies with the four-year requirement. Even if you include the rest of 2005, Nadal's numbers are better. Why? Because the percentages are very similar, but he played (and won) a lot more matches. So simple.

Um, therefore it's not similar at all.


It is similar in that both examples show a pair of players, each pair having one player with a better overall accomplishment and the other player with a better level of dominance. The difference is in degree. Therefore there IS a similarity. I don't know what's so complicated about that, just as I don't know what's so complicated in understanding that 123-2 is obviously better than 88-2. Or that 4 years are 48 months.

Now a small aside. What's the name of those little dogs whose hair hangs down and covers their eyes and their face?

I knew someone who call them "weeping-willow dogs". Because there is a similarity, though its detection requires a more poetic imagination than the one I pointed out. The one I pointed out requires no imagination at all. It's there in plain sight.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 03:17 PM
Well it IS the weakest competition on clay ever so he would not have won as much if the competition had been stronger.

deltox
04-18-2009, 03:19 PM
[QUOTE]

Two years? Okay, take two years. Go from MC 2005 to MC 2007. Or from Rome 2005 to Rome 2007. Don't tell me that's not two years. And don't tell me that YOU get to choose the two year boundary dates, but I don't. Such freshness will not be tolerated.

In that two-year period, the winning percentage is 100% and therefore cannot get any better. I can guarantee you that even if Borg has any 2-year period with 100% wins on clay (I don't know if he does, you can investigate) Nadal played more matches in that two year period than in any Borg 2-year period, which means that the record is better.

You prefer four years? I've already told you what has happened over the last four years. Don't tell me again that your the 4-year boundaries you set have the blessing of the Pope, but mine don't. Four years is 48 months.




It certainly does, if the winning percentage is similar or superior. Duh. And even if it isn't. Otherwise a player playing 7 matches in 4 years and winning them all would have a better record than Borg or Nadal.



It's not an exemption. It's exactly four years and therefore complies with the four-year requirement. Even if you include the rest of 2005, Nadal's numbers are better. Why? Because the percentages are very similar, but he played (and won) a lot more matches. So simple.



It is similar in that both examples show a pair of players, each pair having one player with a better overall accomplishment and the other player with a better level of dominance. The difference is in degree. Therefore there IS a similarity. I don't know what's so complicated about that, just as I don't know what's so complicated in understanding that 123-2 is obviously better than 88-2. Or that 4 years are 48 months.

Now a small aside. What's the name of those little dogs whose hair hangs down and covers their eyes and their face?

I knew someone who call them "weeping-willow dogs". Because there is a similarity, though its detection requires a more poetic imagination than the one I pointed out. The one I pointed out requires no imagination at all. It's there in plain sight.

lets not starts your 2 years or 4 years mid season.. start at seasons beginning.. whats his numbers now? i didnt check but i am curious as to why your starting mid season

never mind i see why you did it.. because he had 2 big lossses on clay at the seasons first couple months.. makes sense now why you choose that exact start date.

lets compare someone for one month or from 6 months starting anywhere in their careers..

no, sports are done by season, not chosen start times and dates. your bias is amazing

Benhur
04-18-2009, 03:33 PM
[QUOTE=CyBorg;3332621]I made no ambiguous statements of value. I presented partial records Borg simply for overview.

If not ambiguous, at least false. Saying that 123-2 is not better than 88-2 is unambiguously false.


At no time did I say that one was more dominant than the other.

But I did say that. And I stand by it.


You twist the dates to fit your argument.

There we go again. Who told you that, in choosing a given length of time to compare dominations, YOU get to pick the start and end dates for BOTH players? You must turn down that cooler. You're much too fresh.


And, sorry to disappoint, but only by truly *******ed logic is 123-2 a lot better than 88-2.


And there you go again. 123-2 IS a lot better than 88-2 unless you think that the 35 extra matches were won through the unfair intervention of the Holy Ghost. What nonsense!

This is pretty crafty, to say the least. At least you buy your own bullshi.

Again, no bolshit necessary to see that 123-2 is better than 88-2.
On the other hand, a lot of the substance is necessary to pretend to believe that this is not the case. The alternative (i.e. the supposition that you sincerely believe 123-2 is no better than 88-2) is considerably less flattering.

The gardens and the trees are in bloom. The sparrows are singing. The cows are happy. The temperature is a balmy 75 F in this corner of the Earth's paradise, with a very slight zephyr that caresses your cheeks with infinite tenderness, and even the weeping willows seem to enjoy their weeping. Am going out in search of rapture, but I will settle for less.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 03:34 PM
Two years? Okay, take two years. Go from MC 2005 to MC 2007. Or from Rome 2005 to Rome 2007. Don't tell me that's not two years. And don't tell me that YOU get to choose the two year boundary dates, but I don't. Such freshness will not be tolerated.

I'm not choosing any boundaries. You are. I merely provided the info.

In that two-year period, the winning percentage is 100% and therefore cannot get any better. I can guarantee you that even if Borg has any 2-year period with 100% wins on clay (I don't know if he does, you can investigate) Nadal played more matches in that two year period than in any Borg 2-year period, which means that the record is better.

Borg lost none in 1977-78. Shouldn't you at least check on this?

You prefer four years? I've already told you what has happened over the last four years. Don't tell me again that your the 4-year boundaries you set have the blessing of the Pope, but mine don't. Four years is 48 months.

I know. The whole point is that one can pull and stretch the boundaries every which way. They're not static - they're abstractions - cognitive constructs. You have to see beyond the arbitrary.

It certainly does, if the winning percentage is similar or superior. Duh. And even if it isn't. Otherwise a player playing 7 matches in 4 years and winning them all would have a better record than Borg or Nadal.

Seven matches is not a representative number. The same logic applies to surveys. When you make a poll, you need a representative number. 80 and 120 are both sufficiently representative. I don't know why anyone would argue this.

It's not an exemption. It's exactly four years and therefore complies with the four-year requirement. Even if you include the rest of 2005, Nadal's numbers are better. Why? Because the percentages are very similar, but he played (and won) a lot more matches. So simple.

There is no requirement. This is what I keep saying. You are reducing something complex and human to a simple abstraction. Also, if you include the rest of 2005, the numbers aren't better - as you've already demonstrated.

It is similar in that both examples show a pair of players, each pair having one player with a better overall accomplishment and the other player with a better level of dominance. The difference is in degree. Therefore there IS a similarity. I don't know what's so complicated about that, just as I don't know what's so complicated in understanding that 123-2 is obviously better than 88-2. Or that 4 years are 48 months.

You are twisting and adjusting your language. You switch from 'better' to 'much better' with a stunning indifference to clarity.

Now a small aside. What's the name of those little dogs whose hair hangs down and covers their eyes and their face?

I knew someone who call them "weeping-willow dogs". Because there is a similarity, though its detection requires a more poetic imagination than the one I pointed out. The one I pointed out requires no imagination at all. It's there in plain sight.

If you were a literary philosopher, you would be a structuralist. A reductor of all knowledge to the simplest and basest of abstractions.

The fact that you see some measure of truth in your arbitrary and selective reduction (which you have convinced yourself is 'given') is actually quite sad.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 03:38 PM
ets not starts your 2 years or 4 years mid season.. start at seasons beginning.. whats his numbers now? i didnt check but i am curious as to why your starting mid season

Because he prefers it to be so.

deltox
04-18-2009, 03:40 PM
Because he prefers it to be so.

am i being ignored by him? :(

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 03:41 PM
And, sorry to disappoint, but only by truly *******ed logic is 123-2 a lot better than 88-2. Lol how is that exactly??? Learn to count is my best advice. I don't even know how you got to that conclusion.

Benhur
04-18-2009, 03:43 PM
[QUOTE=Benhur;3332827]

lets not starts your 2 years or 4 years mid season.. start at seasons beginning.. whats his numbers now? i didnt check but i am curious as to why your starting mid season


I already told you what happens if you include all of 2005. Read the posts. Almost exactly the same percentages, but many more matches won by Nadal. Which DOES make a difference.

And I still maintain that comparing level of domination during a given length of time implies no arbitrary restrictions on the month of the year where you start and end that length of time.

deltox
04-18-2009, 03:44 PM
Lol how is that exactly??? Learn to count is my best advice. I don't even now how you got to that conclusion.

lemme explain for him so he doesnt multi quote for 20 mins

smaller tourneys that nadal plays have absolutely zero competition. i dont disagree with nadals decision to play them by no means, i would have to. BUT, counting those victories of 5-6 matches per means he played in about 5-8 more tourneys with little to no competition to gain the extra wins.

i "think" what he is saying is that borg could have easily matched those numbers but he clearly didnt care to play without major competition in the tourney.

i might be wrong but thats my best reasoning of it

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 03:45 PM
There we go again. Who told you that, in choosing a given length of time to compare dominations, YOU get to pick the start and end dates for BOTH players? You must turn down that cooler. You're much too fresh.

I provided the results of Borg in his peak years. I made no comparison. If I had made a comparison I would have probably made an analogy through some reference to Nadal's numbers. The OP was merely asking what players in history, on a particular surface, were comparably dominant to Nadal. I said that Borg was comparably dominant and made no value statements beyond that.

And there you go again. 123-2 IS a lot better than 88-2 unless you think that the 35 extra matches were won through the unfair intervention of the Holy Ghost. What nonsense!

Well, the extra 35 matches were won, because Nadal played more clay court matches. Guillermo Vilas also played more clay court matches than Borg. I guess then by default he's better than Borg.

Vilas, by the way, is the player who owned the clay court streak before Nadal broke it. Now, being the nice structuralist that you are, I would like to see you draw conclusions from this.

Again, no bolshit necessary to see that 123-2 is better than 88-2.
On the other hand, a lot of the substance is necessary to pretend to believe that this is not the case. The alternative (i.e. the supposition that you sincerely believe 123-2 is no better than 88-2) is considerably less flattering.

I believe that both records are incredible and have a great deal of mystery about them. I don't believe that they are distinguishable. I also believe that the frame of reference is arbitrary for the purposes of comparison.

The gardens and the trees are in bloom. The sparrows are singing. The cows are happy. The temperature is a balmy 75 F in this corner of the Earth's paradise, with a very slight zephyr that caresses your cheeks with infinite tenderness, and even the weeping willows seem to enjoy their weeping. Am going out in search of rapture, but I will settle for less.

Now reduce this to numbers and tell me what this beauty is worth.

Lsmkenpo
04-18-2009, 03:46 PM
you selectively cut off the time frame your quoting.


Agreed, racquet and string technology has changed the game tremendously, Nadal wouldn't have been able to play his style of game in Borg's era with a woodie, it is a ridiculous comparison.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 03:46 PM
Lol how is that exactly??? Learn to count is my best advice. I don't even know how you got to that conclusion.

Read closely. "a lot better".

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 03:46 PM
lemme explain for him so he doesnt multi quote for 20 mins

smaller tourneys that nadal plays have absolutely zero competition. i dont disagree with nadals decision to play them by no means, i would have to. BUT, counting those victories of 5-6 matches per means he played in about 5-8 more tourneys with little to no competition to gain the extra wins.

i "think" what he is saying is that borg could have easily matched those numbers but he clearly didnt care to play without major competition in the tourney.

i might be wrong but thats my best reasoning of it 123-2 is better then 88-2 regardless of the circumstances. I don't know how *******ed my logic is but that seems pretty obvious.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 03:50 PM
123-2 is better then 88-2 regardless of the circumstances. I don't know how *******ed my logic is but that seems pretty obvious.

Re-read the thread.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 03:51 PM
Read closely. "a lot better". It is alot better regardless of the circumstances. 35 extra wins just is.

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 03:51 PM
To me it's a no brainer. Borg lost 5 times to the same player on clay and lost at RG during his prime. Nadal never lost more than 3 times to the same player on clay (Gaudio) and never lost at RG.
Nadal has won many more tournaments on clay than Borg at the same age and has also lost to fewer players on that surface. IF he wins RG this year, he will have won it 5 times in a row, something Borg wasn't able to do.
However I have no problem with waiting a few more years to make a fairer assessment. Nadal is still very young and it's obvious he will win more than he already has.

deltox
04-18-2009, 03:52 PM
[QUOTE=deltox;3332845]

I already told you what happens if you include all of 2005. Read the posts. Almost exactly the same percentages, but many more matches won by Nadal. Which DOES make a difference.

And I still maintain that comparing level of domination during a given length of time implies no arbitrary restrictions on the month of the year where you start and end that length of time.

playing and winning atp 250s dont count in the grand scheme of things,, only in points and money'

nadal had 3 losses from 05-07 on clay.

borg from 77-79 had 2

nadal may have had more wins but he played more smaller tourneys with little to no competition.. so in mosts eyes its a very equal run

in terms of field dominance only losses matter.

and its 3 vs 2. this argument can go on forever, but in the end nadal will most likely surpass borg on clay, but everyone is so premature with their assumptions.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 03:54 PM
It is alot better regardless of the circumstances. 35 extra wins just is.

Ok, let's say two players have identical percentages. One has a record of 80-4 over four years and another a record of 100-5 over four years.

I see no evidence in these numbers that one player is more dominant than the other.

You are suggesting that player B is more dominant simply because he played more matches and thus won more of them?

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 03:55 PM
To me it's a no brainer. Borg lost 5 times to the same player on clay and lost at RG during his prime. Nadal never lost more than 3 times to the same player on clay (Gaudio) and never lost at RG.

We already had this discussion and you acknowledged the fact that three of those five losses were when Borg was 16-17. Sans context, you're using numbers loosely and carelessly.

I find it interesting that you've decided to wipe that fact clean and post this again, even when corrected the first time.

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 03:55 PM
lemme explain for him so he doesnt multi quote for 20 mins

smaller tourneys that nadal plays have absolutely zero competition. i dont disagree with nadals decision to play them by no means, i would have to. BUT, counting those victories of 5-6 matches per means he played in about 5-8 more tourneys with little to no competition to gain the extra wins.

i "think" what he is saying is that borg could have easily matched those numbers but he clearly didnt care to play without major competition in the tourney.

i might be wrong but thats my best reasoning of it
Borg played lots of small tourneys as well and Nadal has really not played anything small on clay since the beginning of 2005 when he was 18 (no 250 tournaments on that surface and very few 500 as well) Most of his titles on clay are masters and slams.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 03:57 PM
Ok, let's say two players have identical percentages. One has a record of 80-4 over four years and another a record of 100-5 over four years.

I see no evidence in these numbers that one player is more dominant than the other.

You are suggesting that player B is more dominant simply because he played more matches and thus won more of them? Player B is better because he has played more tournaments. Its not his fault that he was fitter and prepared to do more. He also opened himself up to a bigger chance of a loss. If you had to choose one of them to have personally yourself you would most likely choose 100-5. But regardless these two don't have equal percentages so that gives Nadal the advantage.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 03:59 PM
Player B is better because he has played more tournaments. Its not his fault that he was fitter and prepared to do more. He also opened himself up to a bigger chance of a loss. If you had to choose one of them to have personally yourself you would most likely choose 100-5.

Player B is better because player A played events on carpet instead?

I don't see how fitness figures in here. It's not like Borg can be accused of not playing enough.

But regardless these two don't have equal percentages so that gives Nadal the advantage.

Um, as has been pointed out many times depending on how we adjust the frame of reference either of the players could have better numbers.

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 03:59 PM
[QUOTE=Benhur;3332911]

playing and winning atp 250s dont count in the grand scheme of things,, only in points and money'

nadal had 3 losses from 05-07 on clay.

borg from 77-79 had 2

nadal may have had more wins but he played more smaller tourneys with little to no competition.. so in mosts eyes its a very equal run

in terms of field dominance only losses matter.

and its 3 vs 2. this argument can go on forever, but in the end nadal will most likely surpass borg on clay, but everyone is so premature with their assumptions.
You cannot compare Nadal 05-07 to Borg 77-79. Nadal was 18/19 in 2005 while Borg was 20/21 in 1977. Since when is it OK to compare teenager's years of 1 player to prime years of the other??? If you compare Nadal and Borg at the same age, you'll see that Borg had more losses and fewer wins than Rafa including at RG.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 04:03 PM
[QUOTE=deltox;3332929]
You cannot compare Nadal 05-07 to Borg 77-79. Nadal was 18/19 in 2005 while Borg was 20/21 in 2007. Since when is it OK to compare teenager's years of 1 player to prime years of the other??? If you compare Nadal and Borg at the same age, you'll see that Borg had more losses and fewer wins than Rafa including at RG. Exactly this guy is very bias anyway.

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 04:05 PM
We already had this discussion and you acknowledged the fact that three of those five losses were when Borg was 16-17. Sans context, you're using numbers loosely and carelessly.

I find it interesting that you've decided to wipe that fact clean and post this again, even when corrected the first time.
Nadal also lost to Gaudio when he was 16/17, so it's a perfectly fair comparison. The difference is that Borg still lost a few matches to Panatta when he was in his prime, not Nadal but the most telling statistic is that at 20-22, Borg lost more often and to more players than Nadal did (I gave the exact numbers in another thread). What happens for Nadal AFTER 22, well we'll have to see this year and the following ones, won 't we?

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 04:08 PM
Nadal also lost to Gaudio when he was 16/17, so it's a perfectly fair comparison. The difference is that Borg still lost a few matches to Panatta whaen he was in his prime, not Nadal but the most telling statistic is that at 20-22, Borg lost more often and to more players than Nadal did (I gave the exact numbers in another thread). What happens for Nadal AFTER 22, well we'll have to see this year and the following ones, won 't we?

I don't think you're following the subject of the thread. Why are you bringing in age?

I have no qualms in saying that at 20 Nadal put together better results on clay than Borg.

Borg's peak on the surface was roughly from the age of 21, ending at 25 or so.

I can similarly twist arguments and bring in age to discuss Borg's success on grass at 21 in comparison to that of Laver. Borg, of course, had better results on grass at that age, but Laver played at his best closer to his late-20s. So what?

If Nadal keeps playing the way he's playing until 25 then that would be quite incredible. This thread however is about actual results, not potential or hypothetical ones.

deltox
04-18-2009, 04:11 PM
[QUOTE=deltox;3332929]
You cannot compare Nadal 05-07 to Borg 77-79. Nadal was 18/19 in 2005 while Borg was 20/21 in 1977. Since when is it OK to compare teenager's years of 1 player to prime years of the other??? If you compare Nadal and Borg at the same age, you'll see that Borg had more losses and fewer wins than Rafa including at RG.

i didnt name the dates to be used. i used dates already in debate

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 04:11 PM
Also, wasn't Nadal's loss to Gaudio at 18? What about Nadal's clay court results at 17 versus Borg's results on clay at 17? Convoluted, isn't it?

deltox
04-18-2009, 04:14 PM
[QUOTE=veroniquem;3332955] Exactly this guy is very bias anyway.

i am biased???? you have no clue, im the most unbiased person on this forum. i am forced to attack nadal repeatedly due to bias being used when describing him

borg nor nadal nor fed are in my top favs. i like underdogs and only work with facts and numbers. i see things from an outside view where my fav player isnt involved. you need to check yourself calling me biased


go read all my posts. i dont like watching nadal, but i also am not a fan of watching federer or murray for that matter

quit adding to your 80 posts 20 of which in this thread and do a search for my name in the forums. i pull for underdogs and liek roddick agassi and j mac, im not favoring anyone in this argument, im stating things as i see them.

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 04:16 PM
I don't think you're following the subject of the thread. Why are you bringing in age?

I have no qualms in saying that at 20 Nadal put together better results on clay than Borg.

Borg's peak on the surface was roughly from the age of 21, ending at 25 or so.

I can similarly twist arguments and bring in age to discuss Borg's success on grass at 21 in comparison to that of Laver. Borg, of course, had better results on grass at that age, but Laver played at his best closer to his late-20s. So what?

If Nadal keeps playing the way he's playing until 25 then that would be quite incredible. This thread however is about actual results, not potential or hypothetical ones.
Yes it's about current results, that's why you have to compare those at the same age, otherwise it's completely unfair to Rafa and it so happens that it is possible in the case of Borg and Nadal because they were both very precocious: both had most titles as teenagers and both won 6 slams by 23.
Now if you want to compare end of career results for 1 player with 22 years old's results still progressing, then it makes no sense at all.

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 04:17 PM
[QUOTE=veroniquem;3332955]

i didnt name the dates to be used. i used dates already in debate
Well, those dates don't work, as simple as that, so noone should be using them.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 04:18 PM
[QUOTE=Chelsea_Kiwi;3332963]

i am biased???? you have no clue, im the most unbiased person on this forum. i am forced to attack nadal repeatedly due to bias being used when describing him

borg nor nadal nor fed are in my top favs. i like underdogs and only work with facts and numbers. i see things from an outside view where my fav player isnt involved. you need to check yourself calling me biased


go read all my posts. i dont like watching nadal, but i also am not a fan of watching federer or murray for that matter

quit adding to your 80 posts 20 of which in this thread and do a search for my name in the forums. i pull for underdogs and liek roddick agassi and j mac, im not favoring anyone in this argument, im stating things as i see them. Not you the cyborg guy. I was agreeing with you then explaining that that other guy is being bias anyway.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 04:18 PM
Yes it's about current results, that's why you have to compare those at the same age, otherwise it's completely unfair to Rafa and it so happens that it is possible in the case of Borg and Nadal because they were both very precocious: both had most titles as teenagers and both won 6 slams by 23.
Now if you want to compare end of career results for 1 player with 22 years old's results still progressing, then it makes no sense at all.

No one is asking who is better at the same age. The thread is about domination.

Read the thread.

deltox
04-18-2009, 04:19 PM
[QUOTE=deltox;3333001] Not you the cyborg guy.

o my bad then, all my quotes in this thread are messing up and showing me as the one quoted for some reason.

even this quote says i posted it

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 04:19 PM
Not you the cyborg guy.

Ad hominem.

When all argumentation fails - attack the person.

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 04:20 PM
Also, wasn't Nadal's loss to Gaudio at 18? What about Nadal's clay court results at 17 versus Borg's results on clay at 17? Convoluted, isn't it?
Yes last loss at 18 but Borg lost to Panatta after 18, correct?
Since Nadal is 22, it makes no sense at all to stop the comparison at 17, we should use as many data as we can. Of course ideally we should wait and compare Borg and Nadal at 25, but we can't do that yet can we? So 22 is the best we can do so far.

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 04:23 PM
No one is asking who is better at the same age. The thread is about domination.

Read the thread.
At this point in time (at 22) Nadal has been more dominant. Sorry but this is the only thing that can be talked about. Overall is impossible to discuss before Nadal finishes his career.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 04:23 PM
Ad hominem.

When all argumentation fails - attack the person. You are the one comparing a teenage Nadal to a prime Borg, sounds pretty bias to me.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 04:36 PM
At this point in time (at 22) Nadal has been more dominant. Sorry but this is the only thing that can be talked about. Overall is impossible to discuss before Nadal finishes his career.

I think it's very possible to discuss, but I completely understand your opinion and I think it makes some sense unlike some of the other stuff in this thread.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 04:39 PM
Yes last loss at 18 but Borg lost to Panatta after 18, correct?
Since Nadal is 22, it makes no sense at all to stop the comparison at 17, we should use as many data as we can. Of course ideally we should wait and compare Borg and Nadal at 25, but we can't do that yet can we? So 22 is the best we can do so far.

Again, if you wish to do age-by-age analysis then sure. But this thread is not about this. It's about players who have had comparable years of dominance to Nadal.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 04:40 PM
You are the one comparing a teenage Nadal to a prime Borg, sounds pretty bias to me.

This is not even close to a coherent thought.

lawrence
04-18-2009, 05:48 PM
ROFL

The level of tennis is so much higher today, it's ridiculous. Roddick would annihilate these guys even on that surface. This is like saying the 300 Spartans would beat the US army today just because the kill-death ratio was so much better.

roddicks clay game sucks so much he'd probably still lose to borg with that racket with no polys in it

imalil2gangsta4u
04-18-2009, 06:05 PM
nadal has done so much so quickly. he could catch borg pretty easily.

tennis-hero
04-18-2009, 06:33 PM
Ad hominem.

When all argumentation fails - attack the person.

This is not even close to a coherent thought.


:rolleyes:

tennis-hero
04-18-2009, 06:36 PM
Ad hominem.

When all argumentation fails - attack the person.

Tarzan hit harder!

Tarzan smash!

Tarzan better!

/ your logic.

This is not even close to a coherent thought.


:rolleyes:
:roll:

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 06:38 PM
I think it makes some sense unlike some of the other stuff in this thread. :rolleyes: In addition to tennis-hero's post

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 06:49 PM
:rolleyes:
:roll:

You should look up what ad hominem means. I attacked the argument, not the person. Geez.

Dedans Penthouse
04-18-2009, 06:50 PM
Cyborg using "Borg" in his username.....and veroniquim using Rafa's head with a Rolex "crown" superimposed as an avatar:

does this "discussion" have a snowball's chance in hell of being resolved or what? :neutral:

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 06:50 PM
:rolleyes: In addition to tennis-hero's post

Well, feel free to elaborate as to how what he posted makes sense. I'm going to take you up on this right now.

Prove to me that you're not a mental midget.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 06:56 PM
One guy using "Borg" in his username (Cyborg) and another guy with Rafa's head with a Rolex "crown" superimposed as an avatar (veroniquim):

does this "discussion" have a snowball's chance in hell of being resolved or what? :neutral:

I think that most posters who know anything about me will agree that I'm pretty fair. If you actually read the argument, what it boils down to is statements of value. The discussion gets into rather unnecessary semantics about statistics, wherein I and another poster discuss "frame of reference".

The fellow with the Nadal avatar later chips in and brings in an argument about age, which since I'm sure we've resolved (somewhat). There are two separate matters: domination v age-specific domination. He wanted to stress the latter; I said that I was merely exploring the former.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 06:58 PM
Prove to me that you're not a mental midget. Now you're attacking me now that you're argument is failing?

Dedans Penthouse
04-18-2009, 07:01 PM
Cyborg, I agree that you are pretty objective and truth be told, I didn't read this thread (passed it off as just another fanboy vs. fanboy trainwreck; wanted to come in and read the flaming for entertainment purposes--I'll admit that; guilty as charged-lol).

Fact is, I think it'd be interesting to know which contributors to this thread have seen both Borg and Nadal in their primes.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 07:01 PM
Now you're attacking me now that you're argument is failing?

I guess that means that you'd rather play the victim. I'm glad that's out in the open.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 07:03 PM
I guess that means that you'd rather play the victim. I'm glad that's out in the open. No just showing how much of a hypocrite you are.

egn
04-18-2009, 07:06 PM
Well Vilas IMO was much more formidable opponent on clay than Fed ever was. Fed is the 2nd best player on clay in this era? Now Im not denying Fed is a pretty solid clay courter, but are we going to take competition into account as well? Fed in the grand scheme of things doesnt make even the top 10 best clay courters ever. There are handful of player much better on clay than Roger ever was. The clay court field hasnt been exactly the strongest competition, depth wise since the 90s.


If you make a list of the best clay court players ever. I dont think Fed will be up there very high. Top 20 for sure. Not top 10. And Fed has been Nadal's only major opponent this far really

What? The only french open Villas snatched Borg was missing from the draw? Who was in this draw? Outside of Panatta whose really only claim to fame is being able to beat Bjorn Borg but he himself is a slightly above average clay courter and a 30 year old Ille Nastase and Stan Smith who could never get a quarterfinals at France and a 30 year Jan Kodes. The field as a whole combines for I believe 4 French Opens...When Villas and Borg met on clay he got trashed regulary just like Nadal did once to Fed. Fed at least took sets off Nadal on clay occassionaly and Vilas lost to Wilander as well...but he was 30 than so I can't hold against them. Fed at least won sets on Nadal..if Nadal missed the French Open from 05-07 Fed would have one as well. Villas got his 77 slam because Borg missed it. Unless you want to make some crazy theory about him running into Panatta and losing again...but I guarntee if Borg plays in 77 he wins. He won the next 4 straight and 2 prior to 77..Beating Vilas with ease in each of those sets. Villas won his French Open with a field even weaker than Feds...Connors and Borg were all absent and the prior French Open winners were well past their primes. Also to get ahead of it Ille Nastase got the cakewalk of a draw to his 76 Wimbledon his only top ten opponent was Raul Ramirez a clay court specialist..who was average on clay at best. Federer = Villas on clay.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 07:06 PM
Cyborg, I agree that you are pretty objective and truth be told, I didn't read this thread. Fact is, I think it'd be interesting to know which contributors to this thread have seen both Borg and Nadal in their primes.

I love Borg's game, of course, and collect his matches and a lot in general from that era. But I also give Nadal a lot of credit. Many here I'm sure have noticed that. I like his game a lot, largely because it reminds me in some ways of Borg's.

These arguments always occur because someone decides to dismiss a player that I care about without logically supporting the claim.

This, in turn, drives me nuts and I proceed to dissect the problematics of the non-logic. Oftentimes, the person is just some kid and the joke's on me.

These discussions always happen, because posters, particularly on this board, worship today's players - especially the best ones. To them, they are the best ever, because they are all that they've ever seen. These posters tend to be very stubborn and blind.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 07:07 PM
No just showing how much of a hypocrite you are.

I would be a hypocrite if I was using ad hominems. Geez.

Get it through your thick skull - using ad hominem is attacking the person's credibility in ignorance of the arguments made in the discussion. This is often done to either change the subject or end it with a glib and false sense of victory.

egn
04-18-2009, 07:15 PM
You cannot compare Nadal 05-07 to Borg 77-79. Nadal was 18/19 in 2005 while Borg was 20/21 in 1977. Since when is it OK to compare teenager's years of 1 player to prime years of the other??? If you compare Nadal and Borg at the same age, you'll see that Borg had more losses and fewer wins than Rafa including at RG.

Why do Nadal fans always have to go to age. Not everyone is a teenage bloomer. Is Becker better than Sampras on grass because Becker won more on grass by 20? No. Stop applying such logic to the Nadal, Borg argument. Our I can go well Borg is better because at 19 he accomplished more. Since by 19 Borg had 2 RG. Yet you will somehow say such an argument is unfair as I just made your point look completely ridiculous. Reality wise it is harder to compare the two. You can go by records and tournaments, but the tournaments were less standardized back then than they are now. Nadal has to keep a routine schedule, Borg got to make his own basically. Their dominance were both amazing on the surface, one has not really been LEAPS AND BOUNDS ahead of the other. The whole losing to a player multiple times on a single surface doesn't hold up for a few reasons. One Nadal is not done as Borg is done and two Borg started playing pro tennis at 14..They both did a lot in their youth and both have done a lot now. The argument basically comes down to who do you like better? As right now Nadal has not done enough for it to be easy to say he is hands down greater than Borg. Give it two or three years Nadal fans you will have your way.

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 07:25 PM
Why do Nadal fans always have to go to age. Not everyone is a teenage bloomer. Is Becker better than Sampras on grass because Becker won more on grass by 20? No. Stop applying such logic to the Nadal, Borg argument. Our I can go well Borg is better because at 19 he accomplished more. Since by 19 Borg had 2 RG. Yet you will somehow say such an argument is unfair as I just made your point look completely ridiculous. Reality wise it is harder to compare the two. You can go by records and tournaments, but the tournaments were less standardized back then than they are now. Nadal has to keep a routine schedule, Borg got to make his own basically. Their dominance were both amazing on the surface, one has not really been LEAPS AND BOUNDS ahead of the other. The whole losing to a player multiple times on a single surface doesn't hold up for a few reasons. One Nadal is not done as Borg is done and two Borg started playing pro tennis at 14..They both did a lot in their youth and both have done a lot now. The argument basically comes down to who do you like better? As right now Nadal has not done enough for it to be easy to say he is hands down greater than Borg. Give it two or three years Nadal fans you will have your way.
I totally agree to wait 2 or 3 years, even 4 or 5, still it doesn't change the fact that you can't compare an 18 years old performance to a 20 years old performance especially when comparing 2 players equally precocious.
Borg has lost several times to several players on clay (I posted the list in a previous thread). Nadal has lost several times on clay to only 1 player, if that stat doesn't impress you, then nothing ever will! But that's how it stands NOW, sure what else can we say? And if Rafa happens to win RG this year it will be another record for Nadal (5 RG in a row) that Borg doesn't hold (like the 81 match streak). Everything will have to be reevaluated as Nadal's career progresses though, that is clearly undeniable and I have never denied it.

egn
04-18-2009, 07:34 PM
I totally agree to wait 2 or 3 years, even 4 or 5, still it doesn't change the fact that you can't compare an 18 years old performance to a 20 years old performance especially when comparing 2 players equally precocious.
Borg has lost several times to several players on clay (I posted the list in a previous thread). Nadal has lost several times on clay to only 1 player, if that stat doesn't impress you, then nothing ever will! But that's how it stands NOW, sure what else can we say? And if Rafa happens to win RG this year it will be another record for Nadal (5 RG in a row) that Borg doesn't hold (like the 81 match streak). Everything will have to be reevaluated as Nadal's career progresses though, that is clearly undeniable and I have never denied it.

So lets just wait it out..=]

Benhur
04-18-2009, 08:33 PM
123-2 is better then 88-2 regardless of the circumstances. I don't know how *******ed my logic is but that seems pretty obvious.

Don't worry. I can guarantee you that 123-2 is indeed better than 88-2. It's just that CyBorg, though a sensible poster on other matters, loses his bearings and goes to extremely drunken lengths to defend the sanctity of Saint Borg at all costs. I, for my part, have no problem acknowledging that Borg has so far a better overall tennis record than Nadal. And that if Nadal were to retire tomorrow, he would be put to rest in the tennis pantheon several floors below Borg. In fact I like Borg. I like him a lot. But on THAT particular department (domination on clay over a given length of time) Nadal has an edge. That's obvious to many, but not obvious to some. There is nothing you can do about it when somebody has put it into their mind that 88-2 is just as good as 123-2. No possibility of discussion remains. It's just a matter of faith.

Statisticians on board can calculate what the chances are of your throwing a coin 90 times and have it land heads 88 times. They are astronomically low. That would be Borg. Then they can calculate what the chances are of throwing it 125 times and have it land heads 123 times. And then they can calculate how much more astronomically low the second outcome is with regard to the first. It's a lot.

As a corollary to this simple tale, we can mention in passing that throwing a coin 125 times instead of 90 times requires much less extra effort than winning 123 tennis matches instead of 88.

CyBorg is a good poster whenever matters don't touch on the sanctity of Borg. When they do, he is apt to resort to any silly nonsense that fits his fancy. He is good enough to get away with it a lot of the time. But not with me. Nadal's level of *dominance* on clay over any given period of time is superior to Borg's. Borg is superior to Nadal on many other aspects of the game, so far.

el sergento
04-18-2009, 10:20 PM
Nope. Pete got 7 wimbys in 8 years. Nadal needs to a win a few more French Opens. I dont care much for the smaller tournaments. Domination at the slams on 1 surface is all that matters. IF Nadal falls short of 7 RG's than he is not the most dominant ever

Pete was dominant for sure, but he didn't win as comfortably at Wimbledon as Borg or Nadal did/have at the French.

For example, Philippousis stood a very good chance of taking him out in '99 had he not injured himself.

In the finals he needed 4 sets to beat:

1993 - Courrier
1995 - Becker
2000 - Rafter

and 5 sets to beat Goran in 1998

It just seems that Borg and Nadal are just invincible on clay, whereas Sampras was "near" invincible.

380pistol
04-18-2009, 10:26 PM
Damn, Nadal for winning on clay all the time. Now Nadal needs to lose to Djokovic, Murray, and Federer a few times then we can say the clay field is strong. LOL, this is too funny. So according to you the claycourt field went out in the 90's and will never be that strong ever again. Of course that is until Nadal retires or starts losing.

No GameSampras is correct. As great as Nadal is, the claycourt contingeon is not that great no matter how you look at it.

Gaudio - enough said
Coria - flamed out after 2005 and would still traiil the likes of Muster, Bruguera and Courier on clay
Djokovic - 2 SF in Paris... so what?? Did he beat a top 50 player in doing so?? One ... Mathieu?!?
Nalbandian - what has he done that's supposed to impress me??
Davydenko - again... enough said??
Federer - who benefits from the players mentioned before him.

Nalbandian 2 SF in Paris and??? Djokovic in his 2 SF runs has beaten Mathieu and no other top 50 player.... impressive!!! Coria 2006- present has done what eaxacty??? Gaudio who outside of 2004 (how the hell he won it I'll never know) has never been past the 4th rd iat Roland Garros in 8 attampts!!!!!

Now you can tell me how this is all cu of Nadal.

380pistol
04-18-2009, 10:36 PM
Pete was dominant for sure, but he didn't win as comfortably at Wimbledon as Borg or Nadal did/have at the French.

For example, Philippousis stood a very good chance of taking him out in '99 had he not injured himself.

In the finals he needed 4 sets to beat:

1993 - Courrier
1995 - Becker
2000 - Rafter

and 5 sets to beat Goran in 1998

It just seems that Borg and Nadal are just invincible on clay, whereas Sampras was "near" invincible.

1993 Courier 4 sets, Puerta tookNadal to 4 sets. Are we gonna compare Courier to Puerta??? Becker, you forgat to mention Pete fired 68 winners to just 7 unforced erros and didn't even face a break point. 2000... he was damn near on one leg, and was never broken in the final (faced just 2 break pts), held the last 85 games he served and did I mention... it was damn near on one leg!!!!!

5 sets to beat Goran, in his worst final ever, and Pete still struck 63 winners to 19 unforced errors. What about Nadal going 5 sets with Coria twice (one 7-6 in the 3rd) and Federer. Davydenko pushing him in Hamburg, you know the same city where Fed gave Nadal a bagel. I woud say Nadal is overall more dominant on clay, but scroll back and see what I said the difference was.

el sergento
04-18-2009, 10:49 PM
No GameSampras is correct. As great as Nadal is, the claycourt contingeon is not that great no matter how you look at it.

Gaudio - enough said
Coria - flamed out after 2005 and would still traiil the likes of Muster, Bruguera and Courier on clay
Djokovic - 2 SF in Paris... so what?? Did he beat a top 50 player in doing so?? One ... Mathieu?!?
Nalbandian - what has he done that's supposed to impress me??
Davydenko - again... enough said??
Federer - who benefits from the players mentioned before him.

Nalbandian 2 SF in Paris and??? Djokovic in his 2 SF runs has beaten Mathieu and no other top 50 player.... impressive!!! Coria 2006- present has done what eaxacty??? Gaudio who outside of 2004 (how the hell he won it I'll never know) has never been past the 4th rd iat Roland Garros in 8 attampts!!!!!

Now you can tell me how this is all cu of Nadal.

I disagree. Sure, there's no doubt that there aren't as many "clay court specialists" now as there were in the 90's (just think of the Spanish Armada), but that doesn't prove that the field is weak on clay, it just proves that players aren't "specializing" any more. If anything, it proves that the field was weaker in the 90's because it consisted of a handful of "specialists" and journeymen (Carretero, Berasategui, Arazi, etc.)

Whereas in the 90's you pretty much took for granted that a slew of top players stood little to no chance at the FO, today, anyone in the top 20 stands a decent chance.

Why, because with the exception of American players, everyone knows how to play on clay these days. After all, most European players learn their trade on red clay and Spain and France are tennis hotbeds for new talents.

The field is stronger today, there's just no denying it.

380pistol
04-18-2009, 10:56 PM
I disagree. Sure, there's no doubt that there aren't as many "clay court specialists" now as there were in the 90's (just think of the Spanish Armada), but that doesn't prove that the field is weak on clay, it just proves that players aren't "specializing" any more. If anything, it proves that the field was weaker in the 90's because it consisted of a handful of "specialists" and journeymen (Carretero, Berasategui, Arazi, etc.)

Whereas in the 90's you pretty much took for granted that a slew of top players stood little to no chance at the FO, today, anyone in the top 20 stands a decent chance.

Why, because with the exception of American players, everyone knows how to play on clay these days. After all, most European players learn their trade on red clay and Spain and France are tennis hotbeds for new talents.

The field is stronger today, there's just no denying it.

I understand about players not specializing, but who's talking about Carratero, berasategui and Arazi??? I'm talking abbout Courier, Agassi, Bruguera, Muster, Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Moya and Rios (well 1997-99 anyway). Outside of Nadal, I just don't see Federer, Coria (who was good for what a minute and a half??),Gaudio, Davydenko, Robredo and Nalbandian are hanging with them.

Who knows how to play on clay these days??? Anyone in the top 20 has a decent chance such as...??? Del Potro, Simon, Verdasco, Murray, Monfils, Robredo, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Almagro, Stepanek, Blake, Cilic etc. All current top 20 players, and they have a chance to do what on clay??? Get their shoes dirty?!?

But apparantly his is stronger than a decade that consisted of Courier, Agassi, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Medvedev, JKuerten, Moya, Rios and even Corretja. What was I thinking. Leave Tina alone!!!!

edberg505
04-18-2009, 11:02 PM
I understand about players not specializing, but who's talking about Carratero, berasategui and Arazi??? I'm talking abbout Courier, Agassi, Bruguera, Muster, Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Moya and Rios (well 1997-99 anyway). Outside of Nadal, I just don't see Federer, Coria (who was good for what a minute and a half??),Gaudio, Davydenko, Robredo and Nalbandian are hanging with them.

Who knows how to play on clay these days??? Anyone in the top 20 has a decent chance such as...??? Del Potro, Simon, Verdasco, Murray, Monfils, Robredo, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Almagro, Stepanek, Blake, Cilic etc. All current top 20 players, and they have a chance to do what on clay??? Get their shoes dirty?!?

But apparantly his is stronger than a decade that consisted of Courier, Agassi, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Medvedev, JKuerten, Moya, Rios and even Corretja. What was I thinking. Leave Tina alone!!!!

So that means the great clay courters were done in the 90's right? And Nadal is the only true claycourter and that's it for them. No more. That's basically what you're saying. Actually it doesn't matter what I say. You guys will find some way to massage Pete's testicles and explain why Pete has never been to 1 single FO final. Pete the king of mental toughness. By the way, I love how you throw Moya in there even though Federer beats him like a circus monkey everytime they play regardless of the surface.

el sergento
04-18-2009, 11:05 PM
1993 Courier 4 sets, Puerta tookNadal to 4 sets. Are we gonna compare Courier to Puerta??? Becker, you forgat to mention Pete fired 68 winners to just 7 unforced erros and didn't even face a break point. 2000... he was damn near on one leg, and was never broken in the final (faced just 2 break pts), held the last 85 games he served and did I mention... it was damn near on one leg!!!!!

5 sets to beat Goran, in his worst final ever, and Pete still struck 63 winners to 19 unforced errors. What about Nadal going 5 sets with Coria twice (one 7-6 in the 3rd) and Federer. Davydenko pushing him in Hamburg, you know the same city where Fed gave Nadal a bagel. I woud say Nadal is overall more dominant on clay, but scroll back and see what I said the difference was.

I was solely comparing FO's to Wimbys. Nadal is 12/3 in sets in finals, and 3 of those were vs. Federer. And, on clay, Puerta was much stiffer opposition than say Pioline, the mightiest of all mental midgets.

Lets just say that when Sampras played Wimbledon, for me anyway, there was always a sense of danger form certain opponents (99 vs. Philippousis for ex.). For Nadal, other than his first two finals vs. Federer, I've yet to get the sense that he can actually loose in Paris.

el sergento
04-18-2009, 11:18 PM
Who knows how to play on clay these days??? Anyone in the top 20 has a decent chance such as...??? Del Potro, Simon, Verdasco, Murray, Monfils, Robredo, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Almagro, Stepanek, Blake, Cilic etc. All current top 20 players, and they have a chance to do what on clay??? Get their shoes dirty?!?

But apparantly his is stronger than a decade that consisted of Courier, Agassi, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Medvedev, JKuerten, Moya, Rios and even Corretja. What was I thinking. Leave Tina alone!!!!

Medvedev was a fluke and choked the final
Corretja (my fav. player at the time) was a mental case in finals
Moya is a one slam wonder that was imo, just as good on hc's.
Rios - no slams, and only final was Aus open.

Guga / Courrier / Brugera / Muster all prime time contenders.

Agassi, other than Moya, had a relatively weak field beating: Clement, Woodruff, Fillipini, Hrbaty, Medvedev

Kafelnikov beats Sampras in the SF and Stich in the Final. Other than Mantilla, he didn't face any "Clay" legends.

The 90's really weren't that strong, and with the exception of Guga, none of the players you listed would stand a chance against Nadal in Paris, not even Muster.

35ft6
04-19-2009, 12:05 PM
Yes, it looks almost as if they are warming up. But in all fairness it should be said that both of them could hit a lot harder than that if they chose to, especially Lendl. I have a video of Lendl playing Mecir in the French Open, either the semis or finals, and compared to the Mecir match, Lendl and Borg are swinging with reckless abandon in the clip I linked. We're talking moonballs, and I'm not exaggerating when I say that for much of the match, Mecir and Lendl are hitting at slower speeds than the woman's final I just watched of the Houston clay court tournament. By the way, Lendl was using his Adidas and Mecir was using some a racket that was partly made of wood I think. Almost like a Prince Woodie.

It's not just equipment though. Becker and Agassi both started out playing with wood, but I think they just had a different approach to hitting. When Agassi came out, people thought he was trying to hit way too hard. Mac said he'd NEVER played a guy who hit that hard, and this was after having faced the likes of Lendl and Becker. But it wasn't just equipment, at the time conventional wisdom was still based on wooden racket style of "setting up" the point, a chess style of tennis, a whole different kind of point construction, whereas Agassi would just go for a winner any time he felt like it, it seemed like a very impulsive, doomed-to-fail-in-the-long-run style of tennis. He was just taking bigger cuts, period. That's just how he wanted to play. (especially later, when more players could match his power off both sides, and some hit significantly harder, Agassi had to learn to play smarter)

I've used this analogy a dozen times or so on these boards, but it's similar to how people thought a 4 minute mile was impossible until one guy did it and then suddenly a lot of people started accomplishing the "impossible." That wasn't about a new pair of technologically advanced shoe, it was people shedding themselves of limiting conventional wisdom. IMO. The older commentators probably thought Agassi was a punk, but he inspired a whole generation of future pros who didn't know better and followed his lead and as little kids swung out more. The best of these went onto become the next generation of harder hitting pros who didn't approach baseline tennis defensively.

No knock on the older guys. Yes, they were using smaller headed rackets, and that's significant. But not just that, people talk about what a pioneer Lendl was, cross training, monitoring his food and exercise with scientific precision. That's the norm now, most pros do off court work, cross train and watch their diet. I think I read back in the 50's a top pro talking about how he would eat a steak and drink whole milk to get stay strong for matches. Not just equipment, but knowledge of how the body works has come a long way. When Nick B decided the modern game would be built around a huge serve and a big forehand that a player would run around to hit at every opportunity to control the center of the court (kind of like Lendl), that too was new, and there were a lot of guys who insisted it could never compete with a good serve and volleyer. Well, the Nick B style is now the most common style of tennis on both the women and men's tour. Just saying, it's not JUST equipment, the sport of tennis has evolved concurrently in many other areas. Diet, training methods, stroke production (Borg's backhand? Come on. Is even the biggest Borg fan going to argue it's a technically advisable shot. Compare it to the mechanics of Agassi, Safin, or Kafelnikov.), etc, have all improved. So yes, we have to put these comparisons into context, but at the same time I'm not going to penalize the modern player, plus it's fun to talk about present versus past players. Quite simply, I believe you use a time machine to bring all the best players during their prime to a clay court and ask them to use any racket they want, and Nadal wins.

swedechris
04-19-2009, 12:06 PM
1.Borg
2. Nadal

can be the other way around quite soon though..

35ft6
04-19-2009, 12:06 PM
since you wanna use old clips with crap racquets and terribad strings and such then lets hand rafa and todays field wooden sticks and see how he stacks up. or better yet invent a time machine and give lendel and borg some Babolats. hell even conners would be NASTY with todays hard hitting technology. Talk about hitting flat and hard, conners is the man to show that off.

you cannot compare how one played 20 years ago to how one played today And yet you just did.ridiculousThen go post in a topic thread that you think is worth discussing.

roysid
04-20-2009, 01:20 AM
The question is whether one player has been more dominant on one surface that Nadal on clay. Who are the contenders

Sampras on grass : Pete never gave his best on Queens. Only 2 titles. On Wimbledon he was much tougher to beat. But then again he was not so dominant. Goran pushed him in 95 and 98.

Federer on grass: Till 2008, Federer was more dominant in grass than Pete was. He didn't lose in grass for 5 years. Though Halle was easy. And in wimbledon, he dominated over everyone till Nadal came and overthrown him.

Borg on clay: This might be the closest ever. Match after match they won.

But Nadal is so dominant that he only lost two matches in past 4 years because of tiredness and blisters.

cucio
04-20-2009, 04:30 AM
This topic may be fun to beat around, but no objective conclusions can be reached since we have no basis for a scientific comparison.

Just one comment regarding the 88-2 vs 123-2 debate. Anyone who has studied statistics formally knows that the larger the sample, the more reliable the results or the experiment are. You were discussing averages, but there is a thing called standard deviation that qualifies the quality of that average, and that is substantially lower in the 123-2 case.

Mind, I don't think this is really relevant for the discussion since if we wanted to use statistics as a tool first we would have to agree on an objective, quantifiable definition of "domination", which is impossible given how disperse the variables are and how differently are the weighed in their appreciation for different people.

But there you have the scientific word for the day: standard deviation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation). And a mighty fine one it is in its oximoronic beauty: how can a deviation be standard ;-) ? It would make a nice name for a progressive rock band too.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
04-20-2009, 04:48 AM
The validity of the point ALL depends on the math, so are those numbers verified?

Another important number: Borg's age when he won the 6th RG. Anybody?

25 years and 3 weeks.

Benhur
04-20-2009, 10:46 AM
I have a video of Lendl playing Mecir in the French Open, either the semis or finals, and compared to the Mecir match, Lendl and Borg are swinging with reckless abandon in the clip I linked. We're talking moonballs, and I'm not exaggerating when I say that for much of the match, Mecir and Lendl are hitting at slower speeds than the woman's final I just watched of the Houston clay court tournament. By the way, Lendl was using his Adidas and Mecir was using some a racket that was partly made of wood I think. Almost like a Prince Woodie.

It's not just equipment though. Becker and Agassi both started out playing with wood, but I think they just had a different approach to hitting. When Agassi came out, people thought he was trying to hit way too hard. Mac said he'd NEVER played a guy who hit that hard, and this was after having faced the likes of Lendl and Becker. But it wasn't just equipment, at the time conventional wisdom was still based on wooden racket style of "setting up" the point, a chess style of tennis, a whole different kind of point construction, whereas Agassi would just go for a winner any time he felt like it, it seemed like a very impulsive, doomed-to-fail-in-the-long-run style of tennis. He was just taking bigger cuts, period. That's just how he wanted to play. (especially later, when more players could match his power off both sides, and some hit significantly harder, Agassi had to learn to play smarter)

I've used this analogy a dozen times or so on these boards, but it's similar to how people thought a 4 minute mile was impossible until one guy did it and then suddenly a lot of people started accomplishing the "impossible." That wasn't about a new pair of technologically advanced shoe, it was people shedding themselves of limiting conventional wisdom. IMO. The older commentators probably thought Agassi was a punk, but he inspired a whole generation of future pros who didn't know better and followed his lead and as little kids swung out more. The best of these went onto become the next generation of harder hitting pros who didn't approach baseline tennis defensively.

No knock on the older guys. Yes, they were using smaller headed rackets, and that's significant. But not just that, people talk about what a pioneer Lendl was, cross training, monitoring his food and exercise with scientific precision. That's the norm now, most pros do off court work, cross train and watch their diet. I think I read back in the 50's a top pro talking about how he would eat a steak and drink whole milk to get stay strong for matches. Not just equipment, but knowledge of how the body works has come a long way. When Nick B decided the modern game would be built around a huge serve and a big forehand that a player would run around to hit at every opportunity to control the center of the court (kind of like Lendl), that too was new, and there were a lot of guys who insisted it could never compete with a good serve and volleyer. Well, the Nick B style is now the most common style of tennis on both the women and men's tour. Just saying, it's not JUST equipment, the sport of tennis has evolved concurrently in many other areas. Diet, training methods, stroke production (Borg's backhand? Come on. Is even the biggest Borg fan going to argue it's a technically advisable shot. Compare it to the mechanics of Agassi, Safin, or Kafelnikov.), etc, have all improved. So yes, we have to put these comparisons into context, but at the same time I'm not going to penalize the modern player, plus it's fun to talk about present versus past players. Quite simply, I believe you use a time machine to bring all the best players during their prime to a clay court and ask them to use any racket they want, and Nadal wins.

Those are very good points. I remember Lendl making similar comments about Agassi after playing him for the first or second time, when Agassi was only about 16 or 17. He said something like: "I used to hit like that sometimes when I was younger. Then I got wiser."

Wisdom involved restraint. It was deemed impossible to keep hitting very hard and not miss sooner rather than later. If you look at the intensity of rallies in current matches involving the top players, especially on clay, and the frequency with which they occur, you cannot help wondering how the pre-big hitting era player would adapt to that kind of game involving a completely different mindset and approach to the game. You are right, it was not just the equipment.

Looking at the exchanges between Borg and Lendl in that clip, it is true that those shots, though pretty soft, were considered difficult to attack, trying to generate all the pace from scratch, and some players have always had problems with well-placed off-pace shots. This also has changed, and Lendl was perhaps the first to start hitting hard off those floaters, losing respect for them. I remember after his triple bagle at the first round of the USO in 1987, when they asked him how he did it in the post-match interview, he just commented on his opponent's game by saying: "well, he just doesn't have any power on his shots".

35ft6
04-20-2009, 05:05 PM
From a Yahoo article:The Monday Slice: Is Nadal the best ever on clay?
By Martin Rogers

FIRST SERVE
It doesn't matter how hard you try, barring injury, miracle or alien invasion, it is simply impossible to imagine any scenario other than Rafael Nadal lifting aloft the French Open trophy on June 7.

The world No. 1 has never lost a match at Roland Garros, compiling four straight titles and a 28-0 record. Last year he dismantled Roger Federer, many people's pick as the greatest player of all time, in three one-sided sets.

Last weekend's final of the Monte Carlo Masters, which Nadal has now won five times in a row, merely confirmed his utter dominance on clay.

Even playing below his best and being forced to complete two matches on Friday, he cruised to yet another title. This week he goes for another five-in-a-row, in Barcelona.

It seems that the only meaningful question remaining about Nadal and clay is whether he is already the best ever on that surface.

Bjorn Borg won the French Open six times and has been regarded as history's eminent clay-courter for the past couple of decades.

But does Nadal need to take his tally of French titles equal to or even past Borg to be regarded in the same company?

Many experts such as Jim Courier and Pat Cash have insisted Nadal is the finest performer on clay we have ever seen, and it is hard to argue.

He is still only 22-years-old and no one is getting any closer on clay. As things stand, seven, eight or even more consecutive French titles is certainly possible.

deltox
04-20-2009, 05:10 PM
From a Yahoo article:

martin rogers is a soccer writer

35ft6
04-20-2009, 05:22 PM
Looking at the exchanges between Borg and Lendl in that clip, it is true that those shots, though pretty soft, were considered difficult to attack, trying to generate all the pace from scratch, and some players have always had problems with well-placed off-pace shots. Mac played Andy Murray in a round of SuperSet tennis in London, soon after Murray had won the US Open Juniors, on a fast indoor court, and Mac beat him like 6-1 I think. I mean, the conditions were optimal for Mac: temperate indoor climate... slick surface... just one set... very loud atmosphere... and he even got inside Murray's head with his antics, Andy was ****ed early on. But still, yeah, Mac's placement got to Andy. It must be like a rock musician suddenly being asked to jam with a jazz band, Mac's shot patterns, changes in tempo and pace, were completely alien to Murray who was more used to the predictable 4/4 banging of the junior circuit.This also has changed, and Lendl was perhaps the first to start hitting hard off those floaters, losing respect for them. I remember after his triple bagle at the first round of the USO in 1987, when they asked him how he did it in the post-match interview, he just commented on his opponent's game by saying: "well, he just doesn't have any power on his shots". I remember Becker saying something about how each generation hits a little bit harder. I can't remember all the names he mentioned but I think he said he supplanted Lendl, and then Agassi and/or Sampras came along, and then Safin came along hitting harder than all of them. And so on. With Agassi, too, it was how hard he hit off BOTH sides. Agassi was murdering backhands, too, he's the first person I saw as a kid who was habitually going for winners off both sides. Becker and Lendl had dangerous backhands but I got the feeling that people knew that if they got it to their backhands, they more or less had a chance to breath during the point, it was a much more conservative shot, like a jab most of the time. But we Agassi, at the time, he was throwing bombs off both sides. I remember all my friends wanted to play like him. It probably hurt their development big time. :)

35ft6
04-20-2009, 05:24 PM
martin rogers is a soccer writerIf you didn't notice, he wrote a tennis article. I think that technically makes him a tennis writer, too. Not sure if he excelled in either sport. Likewise, Wertheim is covering MMA now, too. He probably says a lot of stupid stuff about MMA the way he does about tennis.

deltox
04-20-2009, 06:10 PM
If you didn't notice, he wrote a tennis article. I think that technically makes him a tennis writer, too. Not sure if he excelled in either sport. Likewise, Wertheim is covering MMA now, too. He probably says a lot of stupid stuff about MMA the way he does about tennis.

sorry people just say stupid things on the internet, hell half the things the sportswriters write in the print is stupid as well. if i write an article and get it posted on google does that make me a realiable source?


you need to talk to ex pros and people close to the game to find out whats really going on. its just fact